Posted on 11/13/2012 10:30:37 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
People who don’t care that 55 million American babies have been killed are pro-abortion. People who, in some tiny region of their brain, are “against” abortion, but who do not trouble themselves to find out which candidates are pro-abortion, are pro-abortion. (This would include the millions of Latinos who are, reputedly, “against” abortion, but vote pro-abortion.)
A person is pro-life who:
1) understands that Roe v. Wade (and the other pro-abortion decisions of the USSC) is the undoing of the Declaration and the Constitution—regardless of how many or how few abortions there are;
2) makes sure to vote for the least pro-abortion candidate in every election at every level.
I live in a Red State.
The eyewitness to this event is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York—i.e., Dolan could make his life a living hell.
Just to hop in here.
The receiver always infers. The sender may imply or infer.
To imply is to force a necessary, logical conclusion. If I say “All Massachusetts governors are liberals, and Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts governor,” I have implied that Romney is a liberal. Implications are actually far rarer than people expect them to be, however.
To infer is to suggest a conclusion, without necessarily logically proving that conclusion. If I say, “Massachusetts sure has a lot of liberals,” when you bring up Romney, I have inferred that Romney is a liberal.
You are saying that some debater could be so dazzling as to compel the audience at a Catholic seminary to vote for the most anti-Catholic, pro-abortion President in history? That should be a metaphysical impossibility at a Catholic seminary.
You have it all wrong.
To imply is to imply, whether with the iron force of logic, or by mere suggestion.
To infer is to draw a conclusion, whether from an airtight argument, or from a mere suggestion.
You may do well to review the posting rules around here, my FRiend.
You specifically asked me for my comment in the thread.
Then he needs to skedaddle before he gets to see what Sodom and Gomorrah was like first hand.
no end times stuff - just what goes around comes around.
Regards,
Lurking’
Thank you. Although it is not the main point, my point still stands. The RCC cannot speak with a unified voice and is polluted with dissonant positions.
Pardon?
"You specifically asked me for my comment in the thread."
I don't recall asking you to comment as to whether I was a liar or not. Could you refresh my memory here?
As to your question, the answer was "If you voted for Obama, you evidently support abortion. If you voted for Romney, I cannot tell whether you support abortion or not." But, this question has nothing to do with our discussion.
As the original poster pointed out, here is a "cardinal" laughing it up with the abortion-promoting, homosexual-loving, America-hating President and lecturing bishops about abortion, but turning out abortion promoting seminarians from his own school. I brought it to your attention just to point out the dissonance within the RCC organization. Is this the Gospel your club teaches? Who didn't read their catechism?
You pinged me to this thread. Why? I don’t know.
I know Cardinal Dolan. He’s a wonderful man. I would be thrilled to work with him and for him, as I have heard many wonderful things about him over the years. I am glad that he is in charge of the USCCB, and I hope that he can clean out the Augean stables. You are aware that these are seminarians who were there before Dolan took over? He’s got his work cut out for him.
So what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
For Obama?
For Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? Virgil Goode?
Wrote in Tim Dolan?
Didn't cast a ballot?
Now, I think all of those would be quirky choices. Maybe stupid choices. But they would not necessarily be pro-abortion choices. A person COULD be pro-abortion and vote for Romney, too. There are lots and lots of pro-abortion Republicans, even pro-abortion Republican liberal racists, as we know. It happens.
I would need more information than that.
Well, to begin with, you and the OP don't seem to see the implications of the Gospel quite the same.
You:
"I know Cardinal Dolan. He’s a wonderful man."
OP: "The thread is about the biggest blowhard in the episcopate, who laughed his way through an evening dining with the most odious, anti-Catholic, pro-abortion President in history, lecturing his fellow bishops on the need for "conversion." Meanwhile, his own seminary is turning out pro-abortion voters."
I pinged you to this thread to demonstrate that your group does not (cannot) speak with a single voice about what the Gospel does or does not include. You have highlighted it here with the differences in your two perspectives. But, the point of pinging you was to show even the topic of murdering unborn child creates disagreement between the soon-to-be "priests" and their mentor. Hmm. And, their mentor enjoyed back-slapping, raucous laughter with a nearly demonic President, but their mentor is a "wonderful man"? Hmm. Now, where is this clarion Gospel you claimed Rome offered?
Luther would be the first to say he was a broken, sinful, limited man. But, the pope claims to be the stand-in for Jesus on earth, a claim not supported by the text. Luther simply pointed people to the text; the pope points them to himself and to his organization. It is this distinction which induced the Reformation...and it is a distinction which is still going on today. Rome does not even get its own story straight.
There's no necessary conflict between the two positions, i,.e. being a broken, sinful, limited man, and being a stand-in for Jesus on earth.
Peter was, after all, a "broken, sinful limited man," just like every one of his successors. Denies the Lord, waffles on the kosher question, takes his eyes off Christ and starts to sink. But repents, is restored by the Lord, and gets the ministry of wielding the keys, binding and loosing, confirming the brethren, feeding the sheep.
Paul (not a pope, but speaking still for every Christian) says "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the chief." (Timothy 1:15)
He also says, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." (Gal 2:20).
See what I mean? I --- so very substandard --- couldn't live without this hope in Christ, my good Lord.
No Catholic can be pro-abortion. No Catholic can be in favor of gay marriage or gays in the military. Catholic is Catholic. They know the rules.
In my view, in a general election, a non-vote, or a vote for anybody who has no chance of winning, is a vote for the pro-abortion candidate. Which I call a pro-abortion vote.
Source?
“Catholic social ministry begins and ends with Jesus Christ,” he said. “If it doesn’t, it isn’t Catholic.”
Archbishop Chaput
And I bet Cardinal Dolan would echo that statement.
And?
The source is given at the usual place at the top of the post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.